Harrison's Reports (1937)

36 HARRISON'S REPORTS February 27, 1937 representing the interests, not of the independent exhibitors, but, in the main, of the major companies. So it is not only not "atrocious bad taste" for the Allied leaders to charge that MPTOA is financed by the Hays association, but it is in perfectly good taste, because it is actually truthful, even though the money does not come directly from the Hays Association's treasury. In addition to the indirect misstatements, the writer of that bulletin has made also some direct misstatements. For instance, he says that Col. H. A. Cole owns no theatres, and has had no experience whatever in theatre operation. Mr. Ray Tesch, general manager of the Allied unit in Milwaukee, has written me the following on this subject : "Col. H. A. Cole, of Texas, visited me yesterday and he challenged the words, 'None,' 'None' after his name, for he has four theatres and has been in the business for quite a number of years, as you undoubtedly know yourself." I corroborate this statement, for I know Col. Cole for many, many years. The writer of that bulletin, or at least the person whose signature the document bears, should have shown some respect for Col. Cole, for he fought in the World War as Colonel of Artillery ; the facts should have at least been investigated and stated truthfully. Mr. Tesch says also that Ed. Maerts, of Milwaukee, has had many years of actual experience in theatre operation, yet the bulletin has a question mark regarding his experience, indicating that the author did not know anthing about Mr. Maerts' experience. Besides, none of those that are mentioned in the column, with the exception of Mr. Myers, is a member of the Allied Board of Directors, as the bulletin states. This proves conclusively what I have already said — that the author's purpose was, not to be scrupulously accurate as to his facts, but to abuse the Allied leaders. If the producers think that methods of this kind can get them anywhere, they can certainly let the author of that bulletin continue the campaign of abuse. But some one from among the Allied leaders should call the attention of the Congressional Committees in charge of the Neely-Pettengill Bill to this campaign of misleading propaganda and misstatement of facts. ANTI-INDUSTRY BILLS "An avalanche of legislation, including two censorship bills," says the February 16 issue of The Film Daily, "has descended on the film industry during the past few days, according to reports from The Film Daily correspondents throughout the country." The write-up then gives details of the tax measures pending in different spots of the country. Some of the measures affect distributors and exhibitors alike; but some of them affect only distributors. Consequently a unity of effort will be required to fight off all the bills successfully. But before unity may be effected, the producers must show some willingness to come through with real concessions. One of the proofs that will convince the independent exhibitors of their sincerity is for them to drop the employment of the exhibitor organization they are subsidizing and to call the Allied leaders into a conference. These leaders are the only true representatives of the independent exhibitors and it is to them that they must look for the bringing about of a united front. The independent exhibitors long ago came to the conclusion that cooperation between them and the producers does not result to their advantage and are reluctant to give these producers any aid, even when their own interests are affected, for they have learned from experience that the producers will drop them as soon as their own interests are taken care of, or will render the independent exhibitors no aid whatever when they find out that their position is not improved by the rendering of such aid. Good intentions must be shown by the producers if they should expect the independent exhibitors to help them fight off adverse legislation. SCORE CHARGE PART OF FILM RENTAL If any proof were needed that the score charge is part of film rental, it has been furnished by Al Lichtman, of Loew's, Inc., when he answered the 10-point demand of MPTOA. Here is what Mr. Lichtman said : "In setting film rental in license agreements the exhibitor and the salesman have invariably taken into consideration the provision for score charges. Consequently, your request for the elimination of score charges is in effect a request for lower film rentals. We do not think that this request could consistently be made since it has always been and must be a question of negotiation between the individual exhibitor and the sales department what the individual exhibitor shall pay for film license." This is the first time that a distributor of the magnitude of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has admitted that the score charge is no longer a charge to reimburse the producer for monies he paid out for the right to record copyrighted music but an outand-out film rental. When the film salesmen come around to sell you the 1937-38 season's product, show them this statement of Lichtman's and demand that the score charge and the film rental be made into one item. There is no longer an excuse why there should be a separate place for something that belongs to the film rental, no matter whether such rental is "flat" or determined by a percentage of the gross receipts. Incidentally, while we are on the subject of computation of film rentals by the percentage method, let me add that the practice of compelling the exhibitor to pay for the shorts during percentage engagement is certainly atrocious to say the least. When a distributor offers to let you play his pictures on a percentage basis, he becomes a partner of yours for that particular engagement. It is no more than fair, therefore, that he should furnish the show complete. As a matter of fact, you may refuse to show the shorts and the distributor will have no recourse ; a feature film would then be shown without any shorts, unless of course the owner of the percentage feature saw fit at the last moment to supply them.